Looking at the 70-300 L lens. I do track and field, and theatre photography and you can't be close to some of the events. I have the 70-200 f/4.0 L but the reach just isn't enough sometimes. I am also thinking 24-70 L so when I go to FF, I will have 2 lenses instead of the APS-C 15-85 and 70-200.

Just rent 200 f/2 if you need it for any special event. It is pretty big investment if you don't need the lens regularly.

I would like to have 70-200L f/2.8 II and 24-70L f/2.8 II but don't want to invest so much in the near future. My next lens will be 100L f/2.8. It will give me new options for macro and some portraits.

if you live near central pa, I'll make you a good deal on 100mm L. my 70-200 mkii has taken its place as my preferred lens. it is sad really.

200 F2 or the 300 f2.8 ii. I used to think about the 400 f2.8 ii but it is a $5000 premium over the 300mm for which I can buy a nice APS-C body and get same reach or use a 1.4x to get to 400mm (granted the 400mm will go even further) but the price difference is just huge between the two.

If I had to choose between the 200mm and 300mm, I'd go with the 300mm since I already own a 70-200 f2.8.

The 300 2.8ii seems to be one of the sharpest and best performing primes out there in a reasonable size that I can fit into my backpack. It has great micro contrast and amazing sharpness and is very usable with 1.4x and 2x TC's.